National Geographic photographer Bob Krist explains why he moved to Sony

[NancyP]

Sony A7s is a specialty camera, low pixel count but remarkable performance at high iso. It would seem to be the perfect night street-shooters' camera, pretty fine for photographing poorly lit interiors for editorial. No, you can't do everything with it, but for someone who is tasked with bringing back good images for use in print adverts and screen images, this seems like a fine choice. It is also said to be a good video camera.

 

[Perio]

This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".

Some guy decides to switch camera companies. He is not saying that his previous camera sucked, nor is he saying that he thinks that every other photographer needs to follow his lead. He simply made a choice.

But, when the story is posted, look at the defensive (and sometimes offensive) posts.

Who cares if this person switches camera systems? Clearly it was the right decision for him

Equally clear is that his reasons should have no influence on anyone else's decision to stay or move.

No one here can say that his reasons for switching are wrong for him.

So he switched to another manufacturer. Good for him. I wish him the best of luck and I hope that his new system makes him happy.

So why did some people feel it was appropriate, or even helpful, to attack his photography?

It just does not make sense.

I completely agree with you, however some people may feel that famous photographers can get paid by Canon/Nikon/Sony etc. to attract a lot of potential buyers. It may have nothing to do with what Bob actually likes. This reminds me when Scott Kelby switched to Canon and said he liked the IQ from Canon better than Nikon. A lot of Nikon users felt that Scott just got paid by Canon and that's the only reason he switched.

 

[Ralph]

This "photographer" obviously forgt to multiply his aperture with his cropfactor of 2.73 for a 1" sensor. His 200mm lense then turns out to have an apperture of 7.6 in full frame terms, which fits much more to the actual size of the Zeiss lense compared to a Canon 200mm 2.8 L lense... Goodluck hunting wildlife with that

 

[Monchoon]

Impossible? hmm

 

[candc]

i read the article, he shoots a lot of video and the a7s is really good for that. evf is really important, especially in sunlight. the a7s resolution is made for video without pixel binning or line skipping. he also likes the light weight and small size, he uses sony/zeiss and some nikkor lenses he likes on the camera. all sounds reasonable to me?

i have been thinking about getting a regular a7, the a7r seems excessive and there is some shutter vibration problem with it. the sony's are great because you can use just about every lens ever made. i like the idea of using my fd lenses again. i also really have this itch to get a nikkor 135dc but just don't want to have to buy a nikon body just for the lens.

 

[Jon_D]

well and here i am still waiting for pictures from the wannabe critics.

but as usual nothing will surface.... too afraid they might get something to eat they dish out themself.

im pretty sure bob krist has more talent in his little finger than the critics here combined.

and i am not bashing CANON.
bob krist was a NIKON user before switching to SONY.
so how could i bash CANON with this post?

 

[Jon_D]

Very low post count, blatantly re-posting the link to a personal webpage, taking on regular members of the community, and calling them anonymous... Are you sure your name is Jon D and not Bob Krist?

you say you are not anonymous.
so what is your name?

you don´t even post your forename.... mine is jon by the way, not bob.

all you can do is attack people out of anonymity.. you know how people call that?

at least bob krist wrote his real name under the article!

 

[Jon_D]

This "photographer" obviously forgt to multiply his aperture with his cropfactor of 2.73 for a 1" sensor. His 200mm lense then turns out to have an apperture of 7.6 in full frame terms, which fits much more to the actual size of the Zeiss lense compared to a Canon 200mm 2.8 L lense... Goodluck hunting wildlife with that

just so you don´t die clueless.... aps-c is not a 1" sensor and does not have a 2.73 cropfactor.

but hey keep on reading just the headlines and have an instant opinion.

im sure someone who was travel photographer of the year a few times will choose the right gear for the job.
he has an A6000 aps-c camera with a faster AF in his bag too.

how comes that people nobody ever heard of in the photography world know everything better than people who are recognized and make a living with photography?

 

[Ralph]

This "photographer" obviously forgt to multiply his aperture with his cropfactor of 2.73 for a 1" sensor. His 200mm lense then turns out to have an apperture of 7.6 in full frame terms, which fits much more to the actual size of the Zeiss lense compared to a Canon 200mm 2.8 L lense... Goodluck hunting wildlife with that

just so you don´t die clueless.... aps-c is not a 1" sensor and does not have a 2.73 cropfactor.

but hey keep on reading just the headlines and have an instant opinion.

im sure someone who was travel photographer of the year a few times will choose the right gear for the job.
he has an A6000 aps-c camera with a faster AF in his bag too.

how comes that people nobody ever heard of in the photography world know everything better than people who are recognized and make a living with photography?

Wow how arrogant are you without making at least basic research? The rx10 has a 1" sensor. Google it yourself if you dont believe it. I wont waste my time dicussing basics with arrogant beginners like yourself.

 

[iron-t]

...
I agree Krist's body of work is impressive, including many stunning images, but I also agree that the photos included with his ringing endorsement of Sony mirrorless are not great. They're not among his best photos. He also doesn't seem to tout the image quality--just praises the portability and versatility--of Sony mirrorless.

Sounds to me like he sees the switch as enabling him to more easily take photographs that before would have been difficult or impossible. Maybe in so far as he is concerned there isn't a question of image quality to be asked but rather does the camera get in his way to take photographs and it would appear that the answer to that question is "No."

As for why aren't any of his pictures "compelling" or "blowing you away" - if I was him, I wouldn't post my best on the Internet (either.) People will rip your material off without pause (including to use to make money with) on the Internet and I'm sure that anything he sees value in never comes close to a website before someone has paid him for it.

Just look at his website--it features some really great images that he has publicly posted for all to see and "rip off." I don't think he or many other photographers deliberately sandbag when they are promoting themselves and their photography--other than the near-ubiquitous watermarked (often obnoxious) or low-res images. Still less often will a good photog post a few images with the caveat, "and these aren't even the best ones!" No, I think Krist did not get a lot of great still pictures on this trip. That said, he seems to have been focused much more on videography.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Accutance and Steve,
I agree with your comment that sometimes the defense of Canon equipment on this forum is quite rabid, but consider the fact that this thread was started with the aim of provoking Canon fans by someone whose sole contribution to this forum (Jon D, all 15 posts) has been to rant against Canon.
So when people do get provoked, you cannot solely blame them.

I think you have identified the problem.

There are some members of this forum who treat the publishing/linking of an opinion as a provocation. That's what I don't understand. There are many many opinions I don't agree with, but I never consider them a provocation.

If the members really did not agree with the opinions in the video, would not the best action be not to respond to the thread? After a few hours/days of no action, the thread would die away.

 

[Ralph]

Bob Krist states on the website: "Yes, with a permanently fixed Zeiss zoom lens with the 35mm equivalent of a 24-200mm f/2.8 [...]"

This is mathematically wrong. There is a linear relationship between aperture, focal length and sensor size. A lens of with this size on a 1" sensor is not equivalent to 200mm 2.8 in 35mm full-frame terms. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical fact. And it doesnt matter if Bob is photographer of the year or century, it is still WRONG.

Jon_D have you ever seen in your live a 200mm 2.8 full-frame lense? Maybe there is a reason why they are so big and or do you think they just make it so big and expensive for fun.

Do your homework in basic photography unerstanding before harassing other people on this forum. Thanks

 

[tron]

Some observations:

1 . I have seen his website and I truly liked his photos. However, were they taken with a Sony RX10? I do not think so!

2. The 4 arguments are ridiculous:

Silent shooting: It can be accomplished through LV as another forum member said or approximated using 5DMk3's or 6D's silent mode shooting. In addition many Nikon models sport silent shooting modes.

Flash Sync Speed: HSS is supported on many cameras/flashes combinations

10fps: I will not even bother to mention which models are capable of that. I will simply say that this is most usefull in sports. But RX10 is an up to 200mm (35mm equivalent camera). I do not thing it is enough for sports.
It is obvious he didn't use it in practice. Otherwise he would comment in AF tracking capabilities in combination with 10fps shooting.

No sensor dust ever: It is obvious that he didn't use the very latest models with anti-dust mechanisms.

3. No mention of High ISO or low light IQ in comparison to a modern FF camera.

 

[Lawliet]

Flash Sync Speed: HSS is supported on many cameras/flashes combinations

HSS eats power like crazy. You loose three quarters just for turning it on, and then the output stays constant in relation to the ambient light.
The leaf shutter otoh sets the target aperture, giving you a 4-5 stop advantage. Contrasting to HSS you also benefit from ISOs above base sensitivity. You couldn't replicate that with 600RTs because the control system can't handle as many units as that would require. Not to mention the logistic challenges, or the implications when not relying only on speedlights.
You'd need at least 100kg worth of speedlights and batteries to match a single, easily backpack transportable, Move1200 - just for perspective. And that doesn't include stands or clamps. For B1s it works out similarily.

 

[tron]

Flash Sync Speed: HSS is supported on many cameras/flashes combinations

HSS eats power like crazy. You loose three quarters just for turning it on, and then the output stays constant in relation to the ambient light.
The leaf shutter otoh sets the target aperture, giving you a 4-5 stop advantage. Contrasting to HSS you also benefit from ISOs above base sensitivity. You couldn't replicate that with 600RTs because the control system can't handle as many units as that would require. Not to mention the logistic challenges, or the implications when not relying only on speedlights.
You'd need at least 100kg worth of speedlights and batteries to match a single, easily backpack transportable, Move1200 - just for perspective. And that doesn't include stands or clamps. For B1s it works out similarily.

Even so how much is flash used by ... travel photographers? If you browse his site's photos

http://bobkrist.com/photography/

how many have used flash (even more shot with a speed higher than 1/250?)

 

[Lawliet]

how many have used flash (even more shot with a speed higher than 1/250?)

How many doesn't matter - want to fill the shadows in even one picture with some distance to the subject?

But if you want to think about numbers it's the same idea as the "they took sports pictures w/o autofocus"-fallacy. Rather ask: How many opportunities were missed because of technical limitations?

 

[Larry]

Very low post count, blatantly re-posting the link to a personal webpage, taking on regular members of the community, and calling them anonymous... Are you sure your name is Jon D and not Bob Krist?

you say you are not anonymous.
so what is your name?

you don´t even post your forename.... mine is jon by the way, not bob.

all you can do is attack people out of anonymity.. you know how people call that?

at least bob krist wrote his real name under the article!

What is this obsession with names, rather than ideas?

I visit a number of forums where net-names are used with no complaints (boat design forums for example).

In this age of world-wide exposure, with a given percentage of nuts among the readership, there are known and unknown(but potential) hazards to be encountered with exposure of personal info and I.D.

If the Emperor shows up nude, his titles, past performance, or reputation should not change our opinions about the current event, ...i.e., we should not imagine him dressed in finery only to meet our usual expectations.

If we focus on the merits or lack thereof of the ideas exchanged on any forum, letting the poster(by whatever name) be respected or otherwise as his/her comments dictate, why do we care who he/she is, especially since any name posted may be bogus?

Me, of course, you can trust - my name is Napoleon Bonaparte. :

 

[tron]

how many have used flash (even more shot with a speed higher than 1/250?)

How many doesn't matter - want to fill the shadows in even one picture with some distance to the subject?

But if you want to think about numbers it's the same idea as the "they took sports pictures w/o autofocus"-fallacy. Rather ask: How many opportunities were missed because of technical limitations?

Exactly! RX10 has many limitations in that part! (sports)

 

[msm]

This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".

Some guy decides to switch camera companies. He is not saying that his previous camera sucked, nor is he saying that he thinks that every other photographer needs to follow his lead. He simply made a choice.

But, when the story is posted, look at the defensive (and sometimes offensive) posts.

Who cares if this person switches camera systems? Clearly it was the right decision for him

Equally clear is that his reasons should have no influence on anyone else's decision to stay or move.

No one here can say that his reasons for switching are wrong for him.

So he switched to another manufacturer. Good for him. I wish him the best of luck and I hope that his new system makes him happy.

So why did some people feel it was appropriate, or even helpful, to attack his photography?

It just does not make sense.

I completely agree with you, however some people may feel that famous photographers can get paid by Canon/Nikon/Sony etc. to attract a lot of potential buyers. It may have nothing to do with what Bob actually likes. This reminds me when Scott Kelby switched to Canon and said he liked the IQ from Canon better than Nikon. A lot of Nikon users felt that Scott just got paid by Canon and that's the only reason he switched.

And why would they feel the need to announce to the world that they change brand if the don't get paid? Hello, I switched to Sony I feel it is so important that you know it so I am having this press conference!

This just reeks of marketing to me, just like all these hallelujahs when they have tried some preproduction units of a new camera and praise them as the return of Jesus or something (ie like the 7D II now ). It was like that when the 5D mark III was announced too for instance, too bad it soon was replaced by 3 years of people crying over it's sensor on most forums.

 

[sagittariansrock]

And why would they feel the need to announce to the world that they change brand if the don't get paid? Hello, I switched to Sony I feel it is so important that you know it so I am having this press conference!

I don't know about Bob Krist's specific example, but if I switched from iPhone that I have been using for over three years to Android, and felt it was a significant upgrade, and I had a blog- I won't write about it. Because I would be excited about it. People express their feelings. It's natural.
Once again, can't comment on what Bob Krist's incentive might have been. But he did seem excited...

I think you have identified the problem.

There are some members of this forum who treat the publishing/linking of an opinion as a provocation. That's what I don't understand. There are many many opinions I don't agree with, but I never consider them a provocation.

If the members really did not agree with the opinions in the video, would not the best action be not to respond to the thread? After a few hours/days of no action, the thread would die away.

I think it might be a combination of two things- firstly, buying a certain item causes the buyer to identify his/her intelligence, judgment, knowledge etc. with that product. So if that item is vilified, the buyer considers those attributes of his to be questioned. If you think this is too much, you should see the Apple forums. Secondly, there is something about anonymous internet forums, where people feel it is okay to vent their frustration and anger to a nameless, faceless audience or towards another person, being nameless and faceless himself.